OT/ legal question?

What happens when an experienced lawyer defies a judges order and then tries to change part of it to more suit his clients case? I had a pre-trial meeting and was ordered to produce a list of jobs I applied for, for the 3 month period I am claiming in my action. The other side was ordered to produce their phone records for a specific 2 week time period. I sent a letter to the lawyer asking who he would call as witnesses and if he reviewed the phone records. He said he did not and does not intend to review any phone records and says that I need to provide him with a list of job applications for a 7 month period. I checked with a clerk of the court and when she reviewed the judges notes, agreed with me. 3 month list of job applications and phone records for a 2 week period from the company. I think the lawyer's just trying to intimidate me but I'm curious what the trial judge will think. I don't think a lawyer can use ignorance as a defence for defying a judges order or changing it? Some insight from someone with legal experience would be appreciated. Thanks. Dave

Dave,

They canned ya. Live with it.

Allan

I'm going to take a guess that judges don't like it when people think they don't have to abide by the judges ruling. This I know to be true. I lost a job due to intentional false info from another co worker. My employer said that the info provided was confidential and they would not allow access to it. My attorney filed a subponea for it and they refused. In court the judge demanded it. My employer said no it was confidential and would not. The judge instructed the bailiff to slap the cuffs on my former boss and said he was going to sit in a jail cell until he changed his mind. The threat of indefinite jail time was all it took.

Judge's clerk keeps written "minutes" on what he says- and judge takes a very dim view of anyone trying to take any liberties with his oral findings and orders. I've never had the guts to knowingly alter his order, and don't really know of anyone who has. Its especially touchy in a small county, where lawyer is dealing with the same judge over and over again.

All that being said, I don't see where your lawyer is defying the judge at all. Judge said produce 3 months job list- and you're doing that, plus 4 more months, as a strategic move by your attorney. Other side was ordered to produce phone records for 2 weeks- which presumably they did, and the fact that your attorney chooses to ignore them is again, a matter of strategy. Judge said what he wanted as a minimum- if your attorney wants more from you, or chooses to ignore the other side's stuff, is irrelevant to the judge's order, but is a matter of strategy. Have a good chat with your lawyer, and find out where he is going with this. He may well be the smartest guy in the case (or he may be missing the point completely). He sounds a little arrogant- I try to explain where I'm going with the case to the client, as I go along- he apparently has a flair for the dramatic. Since you're paying the freight, you have a right to know his strategy, and to have some input into it.

135, I always get a kick out of the legal questions posted here, its fun to see all the gents come out of the woodwork with all sorts of lay opinions, some are excellent while others not so good.......I can tell ya youre right, ignorance is NOT any defense and the answer is IT DEPENDS ON THE STATE AND THE PARTICULAR JUDGE. Where I practice in Indiana, we're a pro judge state, they have a lot of discretionary power, its their ball game n their rulings carry a lot of weight versus what some attorney wants to do or if he tries to bend their ruling, which most judges would really take offense at. If you dont agree with your attorney I suggest you discharge him and seek other counsel is my best free advice here not having researched the issue or being familiar with the facts.

Best wishes n yall take care now

John T Retired Electrical Engineer and Attorney at Law

The lawyer is for the other side, not mine. I am representing myself because I had 2 lawyers tell me I had a good case but it would be unethical for them to take thousands of dollars from me for a small claims matter. The judge ordered me to produce a 3 month list. The lawyer for the other side was trying to pull a fast one and make it a 7 month list. I'm only claiming 3 months. Why should anything after that even matter? It's not relavent in my view. The other side made numerous claims of attempting to call me and actually repeatedly contacting me. They did not even call once! Of course the lawyer for them objected to this at the pre-trial but the judge agreed the phone records were very relevant. The lawyer is saying he has no intention of reviewing phone records. It was very apparent that the lawyer for the other side and the judge at the pre-trial knew each other quite well. The lawyer referred to the judge as Judge so and so, which according to what I've read is wrong. A judge should only be referred to as "your honour". The judge called the lawyer by his first name. I bet they're golfing partners or something. The whole pre-trial seemed suspect to me. The other side showed up 2 minutes late and tried to surprise/intimidate me by having a lawyer present. It almost worked until I pulled out my phone records to back up my claims and they were ordered to produce their phone records, which it looks like they aren't going to do. I do hope that the trial judge takes a dim view of a lawyer trying to alter or defy another judges order. The other side does not have a legitimate defense and is trying what ever they can to intimidate me. It's not working. In fact, I think it's helping my case more. Dave

What happens when an experienced lawyer defies a judges order"
Maybe you worded it wrong, but he is not defieing the judge, he is asking you for more that the judge ruled.
I'm with Allan...find another job.

Thanks John T. I was hoping you'd respond. The lawyer is for the other side. I had a very good lawyer review my case and write a couple of very good letters outlining my case. She did agree that an initial letter from a law firm should be taken more seriously than if I wrote a letter. I also got an experienced employment lawyer as from what I've read, it's always best to get a lawyer who specializes in the type of law you're dealing with. Since you're an electrical engineer and a lawyer, I bet you could design a really efficient electric chair? I've even got a couple people who could test it out for you. Unfortunately one of them is also a lawyer. No wonder good lawyers like yourself get a bad rap. It's the idiot lawyers that think they are god that deserve the bad rap. This lawyer mostly does injury cases, not labour and employment cases. Dave

Now you tell me that the lawyer is not yours. Big difference. That You are doing your own. You have a fool for a client.

If the lawyer for the other side refuses to produce the phone records that were ordered, he is defying a judges order. Turning the judges 3 month list into his own 7 month list is altering a judges order. I was not dismissed. I did not quit. I was given a difficult choice that made it impossible to continue working there. They induced me away from another job and then lied to me on several levels. I think, and so does the lawyer I had, that the company has to be held accountable for their failure to follow standard management practices. I could have just walked away, but they made it very personal and I'm calling them on it. I will put up with a lot but everyone has their limit when they say enough is enough! Going to court doesn't scare me. I'm really curious what the trial judge will have to say. I can pretty much prove my case just by what's on paper. Dave

Maybe, maybe not. My understanding is that a civil action is decided based on a balance of probabilities supported by evidence and documentation to support that evidence. I can absolutely prove my phone calls and also absolutely prove the lack of the other sides phone calls. If they are outright lying about repeatedly contacting me when they didn't even call me once, why should anything else they claim be believed? I've had a couple lawyers agree that if they're lying about part of their story, it takes away any credibility from the rest of their claims. I have done a lot of research and have important major case law to back up my claims. I'm in Canada and have found the major cases that set the test for constructive dismissal and employers obligations. These are from the supreme court of Canada. I don't think it matters if it's a 3 months notice claim or a ten year notice claim. The same rules apply. If they didn't, it wouldn't be an equal justice system, would it? Dave

Actually they didn't. They expected to work with someone who would have made it dangerous for me to continue working there. One lawyer I talked to actually called the actions of the guy (I was supposed to replace him)almost criminal! He resented the fact that I was replacing him and would have done anything to force me to leave. I was assured on many occassions that this person was going to be dismissed before I returned back to work for them. I'm also out the good job I quit to come back to them. My lawyer said that's the biggest reason I'm entitled to compensation. Dave

You sound like your very upset and when we are that mad we tend to look at things only from one side----our side---- I think you should go apply for unemployment and take a few months off to do some fishing or farming or some other thing you like and this problem will kind of fade into the past.

I'm afraid you are digging yourself into a hole, based on the various posts you've made over the past few months. If you expect to prevail in court, you'd better hire a lawyer. And if no lawyer will take your case, then you might consider that there's a reason.

Getting back to your original question. I'm certainly no lawyer, nor do I have a lot of experience with the legal system. But I have never been in any courtroom or legal setting where there was no written record of what decisions and/or agreements were made. Where is this record? If there's no written record, you'd better cut your losses and get out of this anyway you can, because the judge and lawyer might just be setting you up for a big fall. (I seem to recall that you said in an earlier post that the judge and the defendant's lawyer are bosum buddies.)

I've said it before, but I'll repeat it again: You brought on the lawsuit. The burden of proof is on YOU.

Good luck.

When a judge issues a ruling then one of the attorneys will type up was said and get the judge to sign it. At this point it becomes an order. Either attorney can type up what was said and is usually worked out between the attorneys.

It has been my experience that without the signed order nothing was enforceable. Even with the court order a lot of things are not enforced.

There is a lot of "good old boy" stuff that goes on in the court system. You need a attorney from your area or your going to be banging your head agaisnt the wall a lot.

Life is all about choices. Sometimes you make good ones, sometimes you make the wrong ones.

Either way, they're choices you made and you learn to live with them.

I checked with the court and the clerk confirmed what I thought the judge had ordered. It is written down. She had the judges actual notes from the pre-trial. The judge at the pre-trial meeting cannot be the same judge at the actual trial unless both parties agree to it. This is in writing also. I would strongly object if the same judge tried to be the trial judge. I have undisputable proof to back up my claims and the company doesn't. No lawyer in the world can help a client without documents to back up their claims. Especially easily accessable documents like phone records. Dave

135,

In the state where I live, the judges signature is as good as gold. You should have a copy of any and all judgements if the case is completed. You should also get copies of anything required by the courts if its in progress. These are usually subpoenas giving you exact instructions of what is required and what information to bring. The burdon of proof is always on the plaintiff in civil court. You need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you are owed or ownership is yours. If the judge says to bring 3 months of history, then 3 months is what you are expected to provide. Not more, and not less. Get it right the first time, there will not be a second.

My nephew went through this 2 years ago and he lost the first time around and then refiled it again and lost the second time around and this was in Federal court. I think they had made up their decision before they ever heard any evidence. If you don't have a good lawyer you don't stand a chance. You can get away with murder if have a good lawyer. Look at O.J. Simpson. The judge told my nephew to find another field for employment. I think a lot of his problems he brought upon himself. To this day he hasn't found steady employment. You know your employment record will follow you where ever you go. They may not be able to blackball you, but they will say we wouldn't rehire him. That's like a flashing red light. Most employers will check your background for any problems with the law and your work history. The goverment does that when seeking a security clearance. If you happen to claim a lot of experience on an application and get the position, then they do a background investigation and have found you weren't truthful, you will be dismissed. I know
this since I worked for them for 43 years and that includes 2 years in the Army. Hal

I'm missing something. Is this YOUR lawyer giving you the runaround?

If it is the other sides lawyer...

a) why are you contacting them.. have your lawyer do it.

b) why would you expect then to cooperate?

There's also the human element involved. Several years ago, my wife was in a head-on collision. Thanks to the belts and air bag, she walked away from it at the time. Without going into detail, there was no question the other party was clearly at fault.

She subsequently, however, needed to have her right knee "scoped" to clean up a bit of cartelage damage from hitting the dash beside the steering column. When it came settlement time, the other gal's insurance company put an offer on the table that was about $30,000 less than what we were hoping for, so we discussed the option of going to court with our attorney.

At first, our attorney in the matter (who specialized in personal injury cases and was a referral from our personal attorney) went ahead and filed the necessary papers to bring it to court. Then, as time passed, he became edgier about the situation, recalling a couple of times in the past in identical cases where the same surgeon who worked on my wife's knee had reversed himself on the witness stand and testified the injury in question was caused by natural deterioration from age, rather than caused by the accident under question. He was smart enough to avoid perjuring himself.

After discussing the case with several of his colleagues, our attorney advised us we might be better off to take the offer that was on the table and run with it. It was actually a relatively reasonable offer, and based on THAT PARTICULAR SURGEON'S past record, if we had gone to court there was a possibility we could wind up worse off than if we hadn't. So we took the attorney's advice. And as the attorney was working on a contingency, his share rose and fell with ours.

I relate this to bring out that the human element of participants is a significant factor in court proceedings, and there is also a lot of cronyism involved. I studied just enough law in college to be dangerous, and I'm aware that two attorneys who go at each other tooth and nail in a courtroom in front of the public also will get together over coffee and plot their next moves. Any attorney who's been around a while will not only know how a particular judge will respond to a certain maneuver, he will also be able to predict his opponent's moves. In reality, it's one big game. And as in any game, there's a time to push for victory and a time to cut and run.

Minor correction -- it's civil, so it's perponderance of the evidence, which is a lower standard. Beyond reasonable doubt is criminal.